Author Topic: The American Century 21st that is  (Read 13768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2011, 06:18:31 AM »
<<The government of the USSR didn't make looking up the facts convienient.

<<Whenever someone gets busy destroying evidence , should one assume that the evidence was good for the evidence destroyer?>>

What do you make of the fact that over 90% of the photos and videos taken at Abu Ghraib showing prisoner abuse still have not been released by the U.S. Government?

Just askin', because you seem to make a lot of assumptions when it is foreign governments that conceal the evidence.


   This makes me assume that the pictures are very very ugly.

     I expect them to be disgusting and upsetting , I wouldn't be suprised if they were extremely so. The ones mild enough to release already are pretty bad.

     In the USSR I would not be able to admit I know photos like these existed.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2011, 06:57:26 AM »
As I said, when you have some factual material that is not US Government/collaborator fugitive Cold War propaganda BS, get back to me with it.  Otherwise, I'm afraid, it's YOU who are the blowhard.

But I've got a friendly tip for ya - - as long as you're looking for evidence of atrocities, why not prospect in your own backyard?  It's a real treasure trove.   Try looking up "Guatemala."  Or "El Salvador"  Or "Chile."  Or "Nicaragua."  Or "Colombia."   Or you can go further afield, for a more exotic flavour.  Try "Iran."  Try "Operation Phoenix."  Geeze, why go all the way back to the Thirties for real atrocities when you've got so many so much nearer in time, blowhard? 

BTW, I'd never claim that Uncle Joe would get a perfect report card from the ACLU.  Far from it.  He governed with a heavy hand, no doubt about it.  There are only a few things that piss me off about your knee-jerk anti-communism, apart from your near-total fucking ignorance of the context of the times:

1.  The complete ignorance of what was provoking Stalin's repression, factors such as hostile foreign powers (Britain, France, Poland, the Czech Legion and even the U.S. and Canadian armies had invaded Russia during the Russian Civil War and some -- particularly the Poles - - had committed horrific atrocities there,) the challenge of Trotskyism  on the left and subversion by foreign agents on the right, and the rising menace of Germany.  What's particularly hilarious is your claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here, not literally quoting) that "Well, none of the material I've been reading mentions any of this stuff."  OF COURSE IT DOESN'T, DUMMY.  That's because the only stuff you can dig up is recycled Cold War propaganda, either from the US Government itself, or the British (Robert Conquest, the mainstay of your beloved gendercide web-site, was a British Army intelligence officer in WWII, then a Foreign Service diplomat in charge of anti-communist liaison activities in Eastern Europe  in the post-War forties and early fifties.

2.  The total absurdity of the claim that the Ukrainian famine resulted from the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, rather than hoarding by kulaks.  One or both of your bullshit articles portrayed the kulaks as simple peasants and tried to minimize the differences between them and the other rural land-workers.  Simple they might have been, but in Marxist terms, they were in a whole different class, with different class interests.  They were small land-holders, the vast majority of the land-workers were landless peasants, for whom collectivization for the first time in history, gave them a stake in the land itself.  The resentment of the kulaks towards collectivization was accurately reported insofar as it covered the kulaks themselves, but it was ridiculous that it represented any kind of majoritarian feeling amongst the peasant class as a whole.  Kulak resistance to collectivization, sabotage of the kolkhoz (collective farm) and most of all hoarding (which may well have spread to the newly collectivized peasants, although Soviet sources deny it) were major factors in the famine.  There were many cases of commissars sent out from the bigger towns and cities and largely ignorant of peasant life, who were simply murdered for their efforts to collect the produce in the name of the state, for later distribution to ALL workers of the state, including the urban proletariat.  Common sense alone would tell you that no dictator, no matter how brutal, would deliberately slaughter millions of his own subjects who labour was needed both in agriculture and in the new industrial projects which were then springing up all over the country, typically in the form of steel mills.
3.  A lot of anticommunism is simply anti-semitism, especially in Europe.  So, to put this as simply as possible, Fuck 'em.  Why the fuck should I care a rat's ass about an anti-Semite if he gets caught up in one of Stalin's purges?  Why should I give a shit if his Nazi bitch of a wife or daughter gets raped and murdered by a Red Army soldier?  It's all part of a wider or more cosmic system of karmic justice, where the actual perpetrators of pogroms or Nazi brutalities can't be identified, captured or punished, but cosmic retribution casts a wider net and falls on their families instead.  Fuck the whole God-damned bunch a them.   Karmic justice is a bitch.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 07:25:30 AM by Michael Tee »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2011, 07:10:32 AM »
<<This makes me assume that the pictures are very very ugly.>>

ROTFLMFAO.  OK, plane, I get it.  When the US government is hiding evidence, it's for purely aesthetic reasons, to prevent the release of more ugliness into the world and keep it beautiful.  When a foreign government is hiding evidence, then we can assume that it is crime rather than ugliness that is being hidden.   Thanks.

    << I expect them to be disgusting and upsetting , I wouldn't be suprised if they were extremely so. The ones mild enough to release already are pretty bad.>>

Yes, of course.  Would you say then that the US government's hiding of Abu Ghraib evidence is actually part of an anti-nausea campaign on its part, and thus aimed at protecting the health of the nation?

    << In the USSR I would not be able to admit I know photos like these existed.>>

I know.  I too am convinced that any evidence hidden by the USSR would be proof positive of their criminality.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 11:46:09 AM by Michael Tee »

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2011, 08:29:07 PM »
   I expected that when he became president BHO would have released the pictures.

    That he did not makes me increase my estimate of their uglyness. I expect that they are scenes of cruelty and humiliation severe enough to outrage the ordinary Iriqui and increase the felt harm.

     Anything less would be loose by now.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2011, 08:35:43 PM »
2.  The total absurdity of the claim that the Ukrainian famine resulted from the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, rather than hoarding by kulaks. 


Kulacks were starving because they were keeping too much food?

These famines occured in farming country and to the farmers , the citys were well supplied with the confiscated food.

Yes Stalin was killing a lot of valuable people, but  as far as he was concerned he had plenty more . That it is indeed stupid and rediculous isn't proof that Stalin did not do it, you simply have a higher estimation of Stalins intelligence than I do.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2011, 12:42:43 AM »
<<Kulacks were starving because they were keeping too much food?>>

The peasants and the townies were starving because the kulaks were hoarding food.  Also possibly some of the collective farms might have been hoarding, but that is just speculation on my partl

<<These famines occured in farming country and to the farmers , the citys were well supplied with the confiscated food.>>

<<Yes Stalin was killing a lot of valuable people, but  as far as he was concerned he had plenty more . That it is indeed stupid and rediculous isn't proof that Stalin did not do it, you simply have a higher estimation of Stalins intelligence than I do.>>

You're not qualified to pass judgment on Stalin's intelligence.  That's above your pay grade.  Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party.  They'd all have to be as stupid as you think Stalin was, in fact they were some of the smartest men on the face of the earth.  At that time, in the 1930s, the Russian economy was growing in double digits while America and Western Europe were in the depths of a depression.  If I am faced with two possibilities, one being that Stalin did a very stupid thing, the other being that the thing itself did not happen as it was said to have done, my first choice would be to accept that Stalin was too smart to have done what his enemies have accused him of doing, therefore the thing either did not happen, or happened but not as a deliberately chosen course of action by Stalin.

If Stalin had persisted in a dangerous course of conduct that put the homeland and the Revolution in jeopardy for no good reason, Stalin, if he could not be persuaded to the contrary by other members of the Central Committee, would have been assassinated by them as a dangerous lunatic.

BSB

  • Guest
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2011, 05:23:50 AM »
Thata boy MTee, you stick to fiction. 

Say, how about a short story on the upcoming "Revolution" and it's battle with "The Man".

Michael Tee: "They were the enemy of the people."

Joesph Goebbels: "Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people."


BSB

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2011, 10:49:39 AM »
<<Say, how about a short story on the upcoming "Revolution" and it's battle with "The Man". >>

Never happen, BSB, so nobody'd believe it.  Every good story has to have a core of truth to it.  Like a story about a program where the military attacks the civilian infrastructure of a political movement it is trying to subdue and murders about 60,000 of them, mostly under heavy sustained torture.  It could be called "Operation Phoenix."  Or another about an evil bunch of Fortune 500 execs, Zio-Nazis and Texas oilmen who concoct fantastic stories of weapons of mass destruction (which they themselves possess in abundance) and get the USA to invade a country of about 23 million people to get hold of their oil, the second biggest proven reserves in the world, killing, raping and torturing over a million Arabs in the process - - it could be called "Bush!!!"  A spin-off could be called "Abu Ghraib!" but I bet you already figured out what THAT could be about.  The one I always wanted to write could have been called, "The Life and Death of Salvador Allende."  There's also one called "The Strange Case of Bradley Manning," and another called "A Murder in Yemen" . . .

If I were to write fiction, BSB, as you love to do, I would make sure that my stories were based on some historical truths, unlike the stale, recycled Cold War propaganda that you love to flood this place with.  And unfortunately I have too many examples to choose from.  I know only that the coming years will provide me with plenty more.

<<Michael Tee: "They [the enemies of the Revolution] were the enemy of the people." >>  TRUE.  Although unfortunately not all of them were enemies of the Revolution.  Mistakes were made.

<<Joesph Goebbels: "Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people.">>  FALSE (at the time) - - Obviously so to anyone but a fucking Nazi.

But thanks for indicating your Nazi sympathies for the eleven zillionth time.  Now tell me again how none a those Nazi bitches got what was coming to them.  That's always entertaining.  All those sweet, pure, innocent. blonde  Aryan angels and those evil Mongol bastards from hell loosed upon them by their Jew-Bolshevik masters in Moscow.   The noble Aryan bloodstream polluted for untold thousands of years by filthy Mongol seed.  The end of the world as we know it.  Oy, such tragedy.  Just tugs at the old heart-strings.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2011, 11:04:25 PM »
Stalin didn't need to be the smartest guy in the room when he robbed banks , he just had to have anyone smarter convinced that objecting would cause shooting.

He governed pretty much the same way.

How smart do you have to be to terrorfy people?

Would your theroy provig Stalin SMart not apply just as well to all dictators?

I don't think dictators have to be stupid , but I do think that being a dictator engenders stupidity.

  By all accounts Hitler was a pretty smart guy to smart with, but by late 1944 the British were refuseing oppurtunitys to assinate him because Chirchill realised that his Hitlers leadership was becoming detrimental to the German war effort.

  I think Stalin suffered just as much as Hitler did,from the lassitude of mind that attacks the great man once no one can tell him "No".

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2011, 03:16:50 AM »
<<Stalin didn't need to be the smartest guy in the room when he robbed banks , he just had to have anyone smarter convinced that objecting would cause shooting.>>

That's a pretty cavalier judgment on your part, wouldn't you say?  I'm sure the banks and the government must have taken some steps to prevent bank robberies, whatever they were.  If any fucking moron could conduct a successful bank robbery, there wouldn't have been any banks left in Russia to rob.

I would suggest that we know about Stalin's career as a bank robber, it's because he was the most successful of all bank robbers in Russian.  Thousands of nameless schmucks must have fallen by the wayside in one botched robbery after another.  Stalin was the cream that rose to the top.  As I understand his operations, they involved bands of up to twenty armed men on horseback in highly mobile operations.

I would say that at a minimum what he proved in his bank robbing days were operational and planning skills, leadership and courage.

<<He governed pretty much the same way.>>

Since you seem to know very little about how he governed and even less about how he robbed banks, that statement is so ridiculous that it might even be true.  It's kind of like saying "He governed the way he laced his boots" or "He laced his boots the same way he combed his hair."    You're equating one unknown quantity with another - - well since they're both unknown, you may well be right - - or wrong.  Who the hell knows?

<<How smart do you have to be to terrorfy people?>>

A stupid question because it assumes that Stalin's only attribute was his ability to terrify people.  How smart do you have to be to inspire people to sacrifice their lives for you?  To work that extra shift for you?  To cry at the announcement of your death?  Your "knowledge" of Stalin and his accomplishments is pathetic.  It seems to be formed entirely from Cold War propaganda.

<<Would your theroy provig Stalin SMart not apply just as well to all dictators?>>

I wouldn't generalize.  Tell me the dictator and I'll tell you what I think of how smart he is (if I know.)

<<I don't think dictators have to be stupid , but I do think that being a dictator engenders stupidity.>>

I think in the first place they've got to be pretty damned smart to get to be dictator in the first place, as to what you mean by "engendering stupidity" I'm not sure at all.  I think smart guys stay smart, dumb guys stay dumb.  Nothing "engenders" stupidity, stupid people are born not made, same as smart folk. 

Sometimes a smart guy can fall apart under pressure when things don't go his way and he loses his nerve, which is more or less what I thought happened to Hitler.  He couldn't invade Britain so he turns against Russia.  The USA declares war on Japan so he declares war on the USA.  One stupid fucking decision on top of another one.  "Had" to declare war on the USA because of his treaty obligations to Japan - - he had treaty obligations with Russia too, but he wiped his ass with them.  But honouring his treaty with Japan, THAT was a real necessity!  Fucking moron.

 << By all accounts Hitler was a pretty smart guy to smart with, but by late 1944 the British were refuseing oppurtunitys to assinate him because Chirchill realised that his Hitlers leadership was becoming detrimental to the German war effort.>>

I never heard that.  The entire German military had sworn an oath to follow Adolf Hitler.  As long as he was alive the military would follow his orders.  Even the Stauffenberg plot against Hitler depended on Hitler being dead before the orders to take over key positions in the capital would be issued.  With Hitler alive, everybody realized such orders would be null and void.  So as long as Hitler lived, the possibility of an Army coup against him was nil.  As soon as he was dead, NO soldier would be held back from supporting one or another military faction because of an oath to a dead man.

<<  I think Stalin suffered just as much as Hitler did,from the lassitude of mind that attacks the great man once no one can tell him "No".>>

I think you're suffering from an oversimplified version of dictators.  People were always able to argue against a dictator, they just had to be careful (a) that they had the status to do so and (b) that they didn't cross any lines, show disrespect, etc.  Particularly Stalin, who was not officially any kind of Supreme Leader or Fuehrer, he was just one member of, and General Secretary of, the Central Committee.  The other members weren't rubber stamps.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2011, 06:26:18 AM »
Quote
<< By all accounts Hitler was a pretty smart guy to smart with, but by late 1944 the British were refuseing oppurtunitys to assinate him because Chirchill realised that his Hitlers leadership was becoming detrimental to the German war effort.>>

I never heard that. 


Operation Foxley
Quote
    The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably lead a better war-effort.[1] Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and give rise to .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 08:03:33 PM by Plane »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2011, 01:40:56 PM »
Wow, thanks, plane.  Never heard of Operation Foxley before.  I think they were right to call it off for the reasons they did.  I think towards the end of the war, Hitler was very bad for morale of the officers, particularly at the General Staff and upper echelons and was prone to make irrational decisions.  Clearing the way for his post-mortem replacement might have been counter-productive.  The German could have found a real soldier to replace him.

The plan looked like it might have succeeded.  It was also an indication to me of how cleverly and how thoroughly the British must have interrogated all their prisoners, never knowing at the time which particular scraps of information would come in handy somewhere down the road.

Again, though, I don't take any of this as a reflection on Hitler's intelligence, just an indication of how poorly he handled reversals, checks, stress and pressure.  About a week ago, the Toronto Star had an article on the fine line between greatness and madness - - or maybe it was genius and madness - - Hitler, whether he was a great man (from the dark side) or an evil genius, always seemed to me in many ways, even in the style of his oratory, to be hovering close to the brink of madness.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2011, 08:12:46 PM »

BSB

  • Guest
Re: The American Century 21st that is
« Reply #73 on: November 02, 2011, 06:19:09 AM »
>>"You could say that this study proves that genius does in fact border on insanity, but people diagnosed with psychological illness can not be highly creative, this is important to underline", he said<<

http://www.thelocal.se/26708/20100518/

BSB